Vital Interests: Global climate change has heightened interest in the polar regions of the world. What can you tell us about their status and their governance?

Raymond Arnaudo: I’m always happy to talk about developments in the polar regions. International cooperation started with the region of the South Pole. The Antarctic Treaty was put together in the late 1950s as a result of scientific cooperation. Scientists from around the world got together to share their data and exchange ideas. From those efforts of scientific cooperation came the notion that governments could also get together and cooperate on how access to Antarctica should be handled. At that time, there was a lot of research and interest in Antarctica. Some nations were talking about doing military testing and other military activities there. There were even suggestions of testing nuclear explosions. The thought was: this was a vast wasteland, so why not?

Scientists countered those ideas and called for international scientific and policy meetings that resulted in the 1959 Antarctic Treaty. It came into force about two years later with 12 countries - all of whom claimed land on the continent - agreeing to suspend any territorial claims and reserve the Antarctic as a region dedicated to scientific research. All research projects would focus on internationally-agreed goals and all data would be shared. It is quite a remarkable treaty. It was about three pages long. I don’t think they negotiate a treaty that is less than about an inch thick these days. But it was quite simple. It didn’t get into specifics, it just clearly stated:  let us cooperate peacefully in scientific  research and logistics in Antarctica. Importantly, it was the first nuclear arms control agreement, and allowed unannounced on-site inspections by any other Treaty party to monitor compliance. An amazing concept, which has led to peace at the Pole for sixty years.

The initial Antarctic Treaty was followed twenty years later, with an agreement on fisheries cooperation. More countries started to fish in the Southern Ocean and it was agreed we needed to put something in place to foster cooperation and make sure that fish were not overfished,  resulting in the 1982 Commission on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources being established (CCAMLR).

VI: Were the territorial claims in Antarctica by France, Great Britain, Norway, New Zealand, Australia, France, Chile, and Argentina the legacy of earlier explorers?

Raymond Arnaudo: Yes, going back to the 1800s, when sailing captains first speculated that there might be something down below the Cape of Good Hope in Africa and, sure enough, they found land. Countries started sending in expeditions and staking claims. By the end of the Nineteenth century seven countries had actually established their foothold and said “we claim this bit of turf.” Countries have maintained those claims even though, when the Treaty was enforced,  it was agreed to ignore territorial rights on the continent of Antarctica. That’s pretty much been the rule.

The lack of any identified and exploitable mineral resources certainly helps suppress nationalistic ambitions in Antarctica. There may be offshore oil and gas deposits, but the oceans there are too deep to explore. In general,  a feeling persists that in Antarctica, nations should cooperate and share scientific information, share logistical help when needed, supplies et cetera, and that has worked. In the 1950s the first permanent research stations started to be constructed - the United States led the way with a base at McMurdo Sound, which is still up and running. Russia also had an early research station.

More countries established bases - Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia, Norway, China, and South Africa all have bases on the continent. There are now in excess of 50 research stations in different parts. A lot of them are focused along the peninsula, which is easily accessible from South America. 

VI: What kind of scientific research is going on in Antarctica? Certainly studying the effects of climate change must be important.

Raymond Arnaudo: I think it’s all pretty much academic. It’s the greatest spot on the planet to explore our atmosphere and the far universe. The light effects are non-existent in the wintertime, so astronomers are active there. Monitoring the extent of the ozone layer over the continent is a vital activity. Studies on glaciers and the melting of ice shelves do provide significant climate change data. 

On the coasts there are fisheries research projects on conservation of marine living resources prompted by the fisheries agreement - the CCAMLR or Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Because more and more countries were getting access to waters around Antarctica, stocks were diminishing. Krill was the major concern, but there were also other fish stocks that were in danger of being over exploited.

The treaty was negotiated to make sure there was agreement on limits and conservation controls. The CCAMLR was founded and based on a very important principle, that ecosystem management would govern the use of the resource. In other words, it was not just how much fish you can take out, but also the bycatch, incidental take of seabirds and marine mammals, which have an  effect on the ecosystem. Consideration of ecosystem management was a forerunner for international cooperation when CCAMLR was negotiated. These ideas are now more routine. It’s not just about how many animals we can kill and consume, but also how we keep the resources and the stocks healthy and safe and in good sustainable levels if we are going to harvest some.

VI: What about countries like Turkey, India, Iran, and Pakistan also being interested in Antarctica and saying that existing treaties are Eurocentric and based on Cold War geopolitics? Why are they interested in Antarctica?

Raymond Arnaudo: The Antarctic Treaty involved the original 12 countries that had research facilities down there. They had scientists on the ice and were cooperating in the projects.  The Treaty was written to say, anyone who is active in Antarctica research is welcome to join the Treaty. People started signing up pretty quickly. 

This provisional Treaty says anyone can sign it, but to participate in the decision making, you need to be a consultative party and that means you must show that you’re doing research or you have active scientific planning or activities on the continent. You apply and then, at a point, the countries agree that you can become a consultative party. So, it’s grown from 12 original signatories to now 54 countries that have signed the treaty. All agree to abide by the principles, this cooperation on scientific research, sharing of scientific data and  information. Of those, only 29 have become consultative parties. In other words from the original 12, it has now more than doubled research facilities and scientific access to the continent.

Other nations have signed the document and are there as observers. To make sure everyone’s ideas are represented, observing organizations, non-government organizations are encouraged to participate. You have, in addition to the voting members, the observing members, and then you’ve got observing non-governmental groups, scientific groups, environmental groups, all of which participate in the meeting. It’s been a pretty good model for global cooperation.

VI: That’s good to hear. Is there some enforcement mechanism for preventing overfishing or ecological damage?

Raymond Arnaudo: That’s a good question. I think one of the main problems facing the Antarctic Treaty has been its emphasis on very close cooperation. To date, there aren’t any land resource issues and there has been a broad agreement covering science and access to the common. In fact, there was an amendment to the treaty that passed a few years back that banned mineral exploitation.

There was another agreement that was passed in the 1960’s to address conservation of seals and marine mammals because there might be harvesting of critters down there, the land critters. The treaty came into force, but nothing ever came of it. It was agreed that we shouldn’t be trying to harvest the marine mammal stocks, the seals, and dolphins, et cetera. 

What followed after that was an attempt to put together a minerals agreement because the thought was “there’s no interest in mining now but there might be in 20 or 30  years. Let's put a treaty in place so that if it grows to a point where there are conservation concerns, proscriptions with unanimous consent will be in place on how to restrict such activities.” In other words, any mineral activity would have to have been approved by all participants.

The treaty was negotiated and then it fell afoul of the environmental community which said it was really a wolf in sheep’s clothing, that the proposed treaty, in fact, would protect the interests of people who want to get into Antarctica for mineral extraction and they should not be given access. The argument was that this is not about any access today, this is about 20 years from now when someone discovers gold on the continent and this will protect it. 

This treaty never came into force but it did set the mechanism for this cooperative arrangement and it has all worked out for the good. As a result of this failed treaty, there was an agreement by all countries that there should be no mining for the next 40 years. I have few doubts that nothing will happen after that. I think we will agree to extend it indefinitely because it’s just a broad agreement that mining on the continent is simply not a good idea. As I mentioned, the resources really are pretty inaccessible. No one knows what’s there. There has never been any geologic surveys of the resources. The assumption is, underneath all that ice that is  a normal continent. There has to be some minerals, but I think there is a broad agreement that the continent is safe and protected and won’t be mined. 

VI: Before we switch our discussion north to the Arctic are there other issues regarding Antarctica you would like to address?

Raymond Arnaudo: Let me mention one issue before we leave the Antarctic continent.  The one problem area that has come up in the last couple of years is on the fisheries resources side. There’s general agreement and cooperation in place, this Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Resources. CCAMLR has done well, but it is a consensus-based agreement. That is to say, countries review the condition of the resources, of the fish stocks, and they set levels for the amount that might be taken out. The primary resource there is krill - finger-sized crustaceans.

You can eat it but no one does. It’s hard to preserve. It produces very little meat, but krill is a potent protein resource and the demand has steadily grown. In the past, people harvesting krill were from Russia and Norway, perhaps the United States a little, but the overall annual take was less than half a million tons of krill. That’s when CCAMLR came into force to assert that.

Krill fishing has been creeping up. It was 2 million tons or so the last couple of years and now I think it is over 3 million tons. This resource is pretty healthy but the general feeling is that the stocks can’t maintain that kind of access. It’s a problem.

The Chinese are questioning the basic premise of the CCAMLR convention, which is you don’t just harvest the fish, but you also have to consider the health of the marine ecosystem. Discussions have become more and more contentious in the last two meetings where the Chinese are saying we want more fish and limits need to be reconsidered. That’s one dark cloud on the horizon.

VI: And now to a discussion of the Arctic. Is there the same level of international cooperation there?

Raymond Arnaudo: International cooperation started in the 1980s and to date has been very good. Like Antarctica there is a general prohibition on military activities. The nations bordering the Arctic Ocean - Russia, Norway, Iceland, Denmark (via Greenland), Canada and the United States can plan to defend their own borders.

However, access to Arctic waters by military vessels is by agreement restricted. There is not an official international agreement rather there is a forum of the bordering countries where there is agreement to cooperate through regular meetings and discussion. It is a pretty robust system. 

Like the Antarctic Treaty, it began as a basis for scientific cooperation. There was an organization that started in the early 1980s, called the International Arctic Science Committee. Scientists got together to work out mutually beneficial solutions and that’s what led to political cooperation. Cooperation has been good, but because of the melting of the Arctic sea ice and greater access now we’re finding a little more interest in this region.

Also, like in Antarctica, the Chinese are pushing their interests in Arctic waters and have talked about sending more  vessels to the north. The difference with the Arctic, as opposed to the Antarctic, is the Arctic countries do control the waters - the territorial seas out to three  miles from the coast, then twelve  miles continental shelf and then, 200re 200 miles of the Exclusive economic zones. Those territories belong to the five bordering states. That means you just can’t go in there and fish or think about mining unless you get the permission of the host country.

VI: Besides fishing, China would like to expand its economic opportunities in the Arctic. What do you think about China declaring that it is a “near-Arctic” state (dismissed as absurd by the United States) and its “polar silk road” development plan?

Raymond Arnaudo: The difference between the Arctic and the Antarctic is Antarctica is a large land mass, countries can put research bases there. The Arctic, however, is an ocean. To have a land base you need to negotiate rights with one of the bordering countries. I understand the Chinese have been in discussions with Iceland about putting a base there. Iceland is not one of the bordering states, it is situated just outside the Arctic Circle and has close access to Arctic waters.

For China to engage in active trans-arctic shipping depends on agreements with bordering countries that control the port cities. China is working with Russia to build ice- capable LNG carriers and ice hardened-hull cargo ships. There is a joint venture between Chinese and Russian companies to explore extracting energy resources from northern Russian territory.

VI: What about the extent of oil and gas explorations in the Arctic? Raymond Arnaudo: There are certainly potential oil and gas resources in the Arctic region. There have been limited startups doing exploration but so far they don’t have the infrastructure in place for large scale operations. If you drill for oil and gas then you have to build pipelines and there’s not a lot of North and South communication links, either by roads or by pipelines. There is some offshore drilling going on but not a lot. I think Russia is more focused on their Far East territories rather than in the northern reaches. They have some land-based sites. 

For the United States, Alaska has the possibility of significant resources there with gas deposits. Canada is also interested in offshore oil and gas exploration in Arctic waters. In 2016 the governments of Canada and the United States agreed to a five-year moratorium on new oil and gas licenses in the Arctic Ocean although operations can proceed under dozens of existing permits. We will see what happens if and when this moratorium is lifted in 2021. Global energy prices are quite low at the moment which will be a factor in delaying the high cost of oil and gas extraction in the Arctic region.

VI: In terms of fishery rights, do the bordering countries control access and oversee the health of marine stocks?

Raymond Arnaudo: They have but there has not been great demand from countries outside the region. The fishing up there so far has been localized, more on the Russian front, not so much in the Arctic but on the Pacific Ocean side where there has always been a lot of fishing. Certainly, that's the case for  Alaska as well. The fishing is closer to the Alaskan peninsula than anywhere further north where conditions are terrible and discourage large-scale fleet fishing activities. There is cooperation to maintain the viability of the Arctic marine ecosystem.

VI: In both of these areas, the Arctic and the Antarctic, it seems that international cooperation has worked well for many years. The treaties in place are being respected and have evolved as the need comes along. The countries involved all have a common purpose in mind. Do you see this level of cooperation continuing?

Raymond Arnaudo: At the risk of being called a Pollyanna,  I would say things are going pretty well. There are a couple of clouds on the horizon, some political concerns. If a major resource is discovered, or there is greater demand for Arctic fish stock, then you have to ask, what have we got in place to deal with these new realities? In the Antarctic, it’s pretty well controlled but less so in the Arctic. 

The Chinese are the bad boys at the moment but I think that can be handled with a little more international pressure on the Chinese, for example, regarding environmental concerns in the North, that might be effective.  

VI: The United States definitely has an interest in the Antarctic and Arctic, but it does not have the same presence there as others. I think the U.S. has three operational icebreakers while other countries have fleets of ice breakers and ice-strengthened ships. How can the United States increase its activities in these regions?

Raymond Arnaudo: That is a good topic to discuss. The U.S.has one operational ice breaker, and it is very old. We had smaller ones that could break ice, but not to the extent you need to break the ice into Antarctica. When winter is over down there that ice is several feet thick. There are plans in place to build new ships but it takes several years to build them. The United States is restricted because of legislation which demands any U.S. flagships must be built in the United States and we no longer have a good capacity for building icebreakers. 

The simple solution would be to buy them from other countries but that is currently prohibited by law. The Russians have maybe 20 or 30 icebreakers, Finland, Sweden, Norway and Canada have icebreakers. The United States is behind on this. The Alaskan senators have been pushing for more funding, and we’ll see what happens. The main vessels we use, one is really old and tired out and the others are more research vessels. They can break ice but not the heavy-duty ice. That’s something that needs to be addressed by the United States government.

VI: You have given us a good picture of international cooperation in both the Arctic and Antarctic. This is informative from an international relations point of view as it demonstrates there can be cooperation between nations that quarrel about a lot of other things. They can come together for the common good to protect important and vulnerable regions of the globe. Thank you for these insights.

Raymond Arnaudo is a retired diplomat and former Senior Fellow at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, with a career of experience in international environmental and science policy at the State Department, including overseas tours in London and Moscow. He has a long history of work in the area of polar affairs, including Director of the Office of Oceans and Polar Affairs at the State Department, head of U.S. delegations to Arctic and Antarctic meetings, Chairman of the Arctic Council in 1998-2000, and Science Counselor of the US Embassy to the United Kingdom.